Interest rates in Moscow rise to 7%

Is he a servant of the central banks?  

If Putin wants to operate as a free agent, he will have to declare separation from the world central banking system, the Bank of International Settlements, and take responsibility for issuing his own currency, and manage his own interest rates.

If he doesn’t declare currency independence, he is in truth no more than a stooge, acting out a role for his true backers, the Rothschilds, who he makes out to oppose.

It’s the acid test.  Is Putin really an opponent of the Rothschild hegemony, or is he creating a war, covertly for their ultimate benefit?  It’s the way he acts now as regards the Rouble that will show his determination to find an independent course.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

3 Responses to “Interest rates in Moscow rise to 7%”

  1. John Bull says:

    Good article. Now we’ll see Putin’s real colours.

    My bet is that he is just another Rothschild pawn.

  2. Anonymous says:

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

    Washington, Friday Sept 13, 2013. US President Barack Obama formally informed Congress that he had sent Marine units to Libya and Yemen on an open-ended mission 

    Obama said in a letter to Republican House Speaker John Boehner. “Although these security forces are equipped for combat, these movements have been undertaken solely for the purpose of protecting American citizens and property.”

    “These security forces will remain in Libya and in Yemen until the security situation becomes such that they are no longer needed.”

    With hypocrisy befitting a hyper power, US President Obama expressed “deep concern” over Russia’s decision to send troops into Crimea, calling it a “violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. . . and breach of international law.”

    The Russian leader emphasized that in the event of further violence in the eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea, “Russia reserves the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population.” 

    Although Obama’s talk tough was little more than tossing raw meat to the hawks in the Republican Party, diseased beyond recognition by Neo-Con ideology, his comments nevertheless betrayed a breathless amount of hypocrisy. 

    After all, Washington wrote the book on violating the territorial integrity of sovereign states with its 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was wrongly accused of harbouring weapons of mass destruction. Urgent pleas on the part of UN weapons inspectors, not to mention worldwide anti-war protests, fell on deaf ears in Washington as intelligence-challenged leaders dropped smart bombs on Baghdad. 

    Blamed on a case of “bad intelligence” – oops! – hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed over the past decade, while the country remains a basket case of ongoing sectarian violence and regular suicide bombings: a phenomenon completely unknown to Iraqis when the dictator Saddam Hussein was in charge. 

    Washington’s war-on-terror train continued chugging along its iron track, even after the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama relieved Bush of his imperial command. 

    Today, Obama’s “hope and change” campaign promises notwithstanding, Guantanamo Bay detention facility, which Amnesty International has dubbed, “the GULAG of our times,” remains open for business, while Washington’s drone diplomacy continues to destroy America’s image in faraway places like Yemen and Pakistan. 

    But even the US’s closest allies are sick and tired of the extra-judicial wave of serial killings. Just last month, the European Parliament voted by a majority of 534 to 49 MEPs to support a resolution that says “EU member states should strictly refrain from participating in or facilitating extrajudicial targeted killings, for instance by sharing relevant information with countries such as the US.” 

    Finally, during the Libyan civil war of 2011, US-led NATO forces worked on the side of the rebels, many of whom were known radical Islamists, to hunt down Muammar Gaddafi. The Libyan leader was eventually killed at the hands of a lynch mob. So much for planting the seeds of democracy. 

    As much as Washington may try to paint Moscow’s actions in Crimea as some sort of brazen military expedition, Russia’s actions in Ukraine cannot be placed in the same category as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, for example, where US-led military operations in those hotspots have led to disastrous outcomes. 

    Russia and Ukraine signed an agreement that gives Russia’s Black Sea Fleet basing rights in Crimea until 2042, so to call the deployment of troops to Ukraine a “Russian invasion” – as some Western media are branding it – is clearly wide of the mark. Protecting the lives of Russian citizens at a time when Kiev is clearly not capable of securing the peace is no invasion.


  3. Anonymous says:

    See Also:-

    The US Secretary of State spoke today of the unacceptability of invading a sovereign country on phony pretexts in order to assert one’s own interests in the 21st century. But no, he was not speaking about the United States, as one might have thought.

    “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” John Kerry said during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press. “This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.”

    Kerry has also threatened to isolate Russia economically and politically and warned of potential asset freezes and visa bans, adding to media and political hype that followed Russia authorization of sending a stabilization force in Crimea on official request from the authorities.

    “There could be certainly disruption of any of the normal trade routine, there could be business drawback on investment in the country,” he said. “There could even be ultimately asset freezes, visa bans.”

    Although Kerry was never challenged by the interviewer to comment in terms of that statement on Washington’s own constant threats to use force and military invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan, those who watched the interview immediately smelled the hypocrisy.

    “Since when does the United States government genuinely subscribe and defend the concept of sovereignty and territorial integrity? They certainly are not doing that at the moment in Syria,” Marcus Papadopoulos, commentator for ‘Politics First’ told RT. “They certainly did not do that when they attacked Libya. They certainly didn’t do that when they invaded Iraq. They certainly didn’t do that when they attacked Serbia over Kosovo and then later on recognized Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. The United States government merely pays lip service to sovereignty and territorial integrity, it picks and choses.”

    Since the crisis in Ukraine escalated to a point where the lives of the Russian speaking population of Ukraine has become threatened, Kerry’s reaction comes, some believe, as the most ridiculous thus far, taking into account US own history of military actions all over the globe.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.